The need for the present invention is clearly apparent. A growing body of evidence indicates that the non-ionizing radiation from cellular devices, particularly over long term use, or particularly in the instance of children and teens whose skulls have not hardened (and whose heads are typically smaller in volume).
Substantial empirical research demonstrates a positive correlative relationship between close exposure to cellular telephone microwave signal and physiological changes sometimes associated with deterioration in human health. The relationship between microwave signal from cellular devices and health is not controversial, though the extent and type of such relationship remains debated.
The fact of such a relationship is non-controversial is demonstrated by the presence of warnings in the supporting documentation sold with all or most cellular devices. Typically a small booklet is deployed to the consumer at the point of sale in packaged company with the sold cellular device. In some other instances, particularly with one manufacturer, the paper documentation is slight, but the end user is directed to descriptive materials, corresponding in practical effect to a user's manual. In pertinent point, the user's manuals sold with cellular devices in the United States, Europe, and elsewhere contain concise warnings to the consumer based upon a testing regime called Specific Absorption Rate, which is the industry-accepted criteria for the measurement of projected risk from exposure to cellular devices. Below are sample industry defined in 2011 as safe distances, based upon an industry standard expectation of a maximum of 1.6.
CELL PHONESARSARMODEL(HEAD)(BODY)MIN Spatial DistanceHTC Evo 3D0.88 W/kg1.11 W/kg0.40 inches (1 cm)@1 g@1 gHTC Sensation 4G1.40 W/kg0.70 W/Kg0.59 inches (1.5 cm)@1 g@1 gT-Mobile My0.94 W/kg1.03 W/kgNone obtainableTouch 4G@1 g@1 gHTC Thunderbolt1.20 W/kg1.46 W/kg0.50 inches (1.3 cm)@1 g@1 gMotorola Droid0.88 W/kg0.94 W/kg1.00 inches (2.5 cm)Bionic@1 g@1 gT-Mobile G2x0.83 W/kg0.72 W/kg0.79 inches (2 cm)@1 g@1 gMotorola Atrix 4G1.47 W/kg1.35 W/kg1.00 inches (2.5 cm)@1 g@1 gApple Iphone 4G0.97 W/kg0.69 W/kg0.62 inches (1.55 cm)@1 g@1 gMotorola Phantom0.93 W/kg0.91 W/kg1.00 inches (2.5 cm)4G@1 g@1 gSamsung Charge1.01 W/kg1.00 W/kg0.59 inches (1.5 cm)@1 g
While the industry standards for such distances are typically stated as being in reference to the risks of heat accumulation from microwave induced vibration (“slow cook”), other scientific studies have empirically demonstrated the existence of a direct relationship between the non-ionizing radiation from cellular devices and physiological changes in the bodies of the users of cellular telephones, including the head and brain. Thus, an article just published in the Journal Of The American Medical Association (JAMA), titled Effects of Cell Phone Radiofrequency Signal Exposure on Brain Glucose Metabolism, written by a team of scientists from the National Institutes of Health, headed by Nora D. Volkow.
As stated in the Abstract (http:1/jama.ama-asn.org/content/305/8/808), published on Feb. 23, 2011, the Volkow team found that “50-minute cell phone exposure was associated with increased brain glucose metabolism in the region closest to the antenna,” which increased glucose metabolism were in term visible on MRI examination. The Volkow findings are significant in that they document actual direct non-thermal effect, the very existence of which had sometimes been contested, despite prior studies and evidence to the contrary.
The ultimate significance of this new JAMA study is that while some in the cellular telephone industry had previously asserted that there was no possible direct effect upon the brain from cellular telephone exposure, the Volkow study found a direct relationship between cellular telephone use and brain metabolism, long before the levels of radio wave exposure necessary to generate heat.
On Apr. 24, 2013 the International Agency For Research On Cancer of The World Health Organization, announced its findings classifying cellular telephone electromagnetic field exposure as a possible carcinogen. These forms of electromagnetic radiation have been categorized as a Group 2B carcinogen along with lead, automobile exhaust and other toxic substances. A summary of the findings of this just-published monograph can be found at: http://monographs.iarc.fr/ENG/Monographs/voll02/mono102-005-006.pdf
Internationally esteemed environmental scientist Joel M. Moskowitz in his press release on the newly-released WHO standards notes that, according to the monograph “Positive associations have been observed between exposure to radiofrequency radiation from wireless phones and glioma and acoustic neuroma” (p.421), and: “Radio frequency electromagnetic fields are possibly carcinogenic to humans (Group 2B).” (p. 421). Dr. Moskowitz also noted in his April 24 publication that; Children are particularly vulnerable as “the average exposure from use of the same mobile phone is higher by a factor of 2 in a child's brain and higher by a factor of 10 in the bone marrow of the skull.” Also, the child's brain is developing at a much greater rate than the adult's brain.
Many empirical studies have by demonstrated physical effect, such as the work of Dr. Henry Lai at The University of Washington, the Lund University experiments, and many others. Many other studies show that a solid empirical basis for concern about the effects of modulated microwave on human tissue [i.e. H. Lai et al, from the University of Washington, 1984, 1988, and as presented in 1998) Vienna, Austria, and 2009 in Stavanger, Norway; O. Johansson, Associate Professor, Dept. of Neuroscience of the Karolinska Institute, Stockholm, and Professor, Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm, as presented in 2009 at Stavanger, Norway; Carl F. Blackman a founder of. the Bioelectromagnetics Society, as presented in 2009, at Stavanger, Norway; Martin Blank, Ph.D., Associate Professor, Columbia University, as presented in 2009 Stavanger, Norway, Franz Adlkofer, M.D., doctorate from the Max Planck Institute for Biochemistry as presented at Stavanger Norway, 2009, also the following presenters at the International E:tv1F Conference 2009 at Stavanger) Norway: Lukas H. Margaritis, Ph.D, Greece; Elihu D. Richter, MD, M.PH., Israel; Alvaro Agusto A. de Salles, Ph.D., Brazil; Fredrik Soderqvist, Ph.D., Sweden, Yuri G. Grigoriev M, D. Sci., Russia; Anton V. Merkulov Ph.D., Russia], have shown potential health risks, in some instances showing DNA breakage associated with human exposure to non-ionizing radio wave sources, including but not limited to those emitted from mobile telephone devices and handsets, including but not limited to cellular telephones.
More recent scientific writing in this regard, including in 2012 and 2013 has underlined a causal relationship between extended exposure to pulsed microwave signals and human health. Such recent findings have included the Jul. 12, 2012 letter from the President of the American Academy of Pediatrics, Robert W. Block, MD, FAAP, to The Honorable Julius Genachowski, Commissioner, Federal Communications Commission, in which, on behalf of the American Academy of Pediatrics the FCC was again notified that: “In the past few years, a number of American and international health and scientific bodies have contributed to the debate over cell phone radiation and its possible link to cancer. The International Agency for Research on Cancer (IRAC), part of the United Nations World Health Organization, said in June 2011 that a family of frequencies that includes mobile-phone emissions is “possibly carcinogenic to humans.” The letter does state that cell phones cause cancer, but cites academic reasons for concern justifying further study.
See also the findings of Board Certified Pediatric Neurologist at the Harvard Medical School Martha R. Herbert, who states in her letter to the Los Angeles Unified School District dated Feb. 8, 2013, referencing her 60 page study with over 550 citations which can be found at: www.bioinitiative.org/report/wpcontent/uploads/pdfs/sec20_2012 findings_in_Autism.pdf.
In the above referenced letter, as found in the study to which it refers Dr. Herbert finds that EMF/RFR from wifi and cell towers can exert a disorganizing effect on the ability to learn and remember, and can also be destabilizing to immune and metabolic function.” This letter and the study crucially indicate that the effects involved are non-thermal, meaning that they do not result from the microwave heating of tissue but are biological changes resulting directly from microwave contact with the tissues involved.
The recent work at the Kaiser Permanente Division of Research by De-Kun Li, 110, PhD, MPH has shown in a study in which 733 women were given a meter to carry during pregnancy, and their EMF exposure was measured, that, after 13 years, childhood obesity was greater in the children whose mothers had higher E11F readings than in those whose mothers had lower EMF readings, and that the change in obesity outcome was dose-responsive, with a 2.3 fold increased risk in children who were followed until the end of the study after thirteen years.
On Apr. 24, 2013 IARC, being the international cancer research arm of The World Health Organization, issued its monograph of more than four hundred pages, and contributed to by many scientists, in which it was announced that cellular telephone non-ionizing radiation signal is now classified as a Group 2B carcinogen. This recent announced standard and many other sources of scientific data (see the work of Dr. Henry Lai, University of Washington including as in JAMA, the work of Dr. Devra Davis in the book Disconnect, the work of Dr. Olle Johansson of the Karolinska Institute of Stockholm, the low-wattage study in rats from Lund University, Sweden, the Feb. 8, 2013 letter from a board certified pediatric neurologist at the Harvard Medical School to the Superintendent of Public Instruction for Los Angeles, the studies which can be located at wv-rw.bioinitiativereport.org). These data show that mitigation of signal entering the human body from cellular devices can be reasonably expected to reduce risk to the health of persons using such devices. The instant Invention achieves such mitigation by the System and Method herein Disclosed and the Claims herein made.
Thus, a considerable body of work briefly touched upon here shows an empirical basis for the concern that pulsed microwave has non-thermal results upon human health. There is, further, a considerable body of evidence indicating that close proximity, due to the operation of The Inverse Square Rule, will result in much higher dosage levels will occur, such as from cellular devices, when they are held close to the body or head.
Consequently, devices, such as the within unique invention here filed) which provide fine sound quality, while also providing for increased distance between the body (including the head) and a source of pulsed microwave (such as a 3G or 4G mobile phone) will indisputably provide, due to The Inverse Square Rule, the user with a reduced level of absorbed microwave.
Cellular devices now in the possession six billion customers. The value of the invention here filed resides from that vast pool of users for reasons which include the following: 1) The invention unquestionably reduces the level of radiation to which the mobile phone users brain is exposed, due to the operation of the inverse square law, or sometimes stated as the inverse square rule, that the strength of the radio signal is inverse to the square of the distance from the source, which results in very rapid falloff of signal density, including as absorbed, and: 2) While simultaneously aiding the safety of cellular phone users, the invention assists the cellular telephone industry in avoiding liability, because of reduced exposure due to reduced number and severity of injury, and because of the quality of warning which results from dispensing the product, which increased quality of warning has an insulating effect, and: 3) In addition to the possible benefits to users, market and ethical value in the invention stemming from education of persons who may not directly benefit from the use of proximity avoidance from a radiation reduction standpoint, but who nonetheless gain peace of mind through taking various prudent steps towards limitation of EMF contact, including those who merely witness the invention being used by others.
The antennae of cellular smart phone devices are now typically integrated into the device as a whole, and very typically deployed at the rear circumferential periphery of such devices. Smart phone, mobile device, cellular phone, radio etc. are used interchangeable to describe a personal device that has a transceiver and no particular distinction should be implied between them.
Current antennae are omnidirectional, and emit microwave signal in a generally spherical pattern from the antennae. Because the emission of the outgoing microwave signal is spherical, such signal necessarily emits into the body of the end user of such devices, and when such devices are in use and near the head, this spherical characteristic of microwave broadcast causes microwave entry into the head of the user.
While it is true that in the more modern, and most American systems, the CDMA approach to cellular frequency is employed, which operates at very low wattage in urban settings. However, it is also the case that when the nearest cellular tower is distant, and the signal-from-tower correspondingly weak, there is an exponential multiplication of outgoing signal strength from the CDMA handheld device.
Consequently, including in the most modern variants of the cellular device, substantial non-ionizing radiation will penetrate the head of the user when the device is in the “on” condition and engaged in broadcast in distant-from-tower contexts, and the invention here stated will be of particular use in such distance situations, although useful in all known frequency modulation regimes.
The use of both in-phase and modified phase signal is well understood as a mechanism for the reduction of signal penetration from the direction of original signal origin. While this concept has been used in various ways, the most commonly available example of the use in the active noise reduction context, such as used in noise cancelling aviation headsets, such as originally developed by Bose, and as subsequently expanded by that company and others into noise cancellation applications for both the aviation and the consumer music markets.
Systems in use today achieve effectiveness through active means, namely the capture of incoming signal (such as ambient engine noise), and immediate amplified re-broadcast of such signal, as copied and amplified and/or phase modified in opposition to the direction of origin of the sound involved. In such circumstance, signal cancellation; often generically and commercially referred to as “noise cancellation” reduces the undesired sound perceived by the person using such active noise cancellation equipped devices.
Advantages of the present subject matter will be readily apparent to one skilled in the art to which the invention pertains from a perusal of the claims, the appended drawings, and the following detailed description of preferred embodiments.